Revisiting the Iraq War

Few people will get through all of the Chilcot Report: the executive summary alone calls for its own executive summary. But it would be a shame if the report were not widely read and, more important, studied, because it contains useful insights into how diplomacy operates, how policy is made, and how decisions are taken.

NEW YORK – Seven years, 12 volumes of evidence, findings, and conclusions, and one executive summary later, the Report of the Iraq Inquiry, more commonly referred to as the Chilcot Report (after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot), is available for one and all to read. Few people will get through all of it; the executive summary alone (well over 100 pages) is so long that it calls for its own executive summary.

But it would be a shame if the Report were not widely read and, more important, studied, because it contains some useful insights into how diplomacy operates, how policy is made, and how decisions are taken. It also reminds us of the centrality of the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and of the aftermath, for understanding today’s Middle East.

A central theme of the Report is that the Iraq War did not have to happen, and certainly not when it did. The decision to go to war was partly based on faulty intelligence. Iraq constituted at most a gathering threat, not an imminent one. Alternatives to using military force – above all, strengthening Turkey’s and Jordan’s lackluster enforcement of and support for the UN sanctions designed to pressure Saddam Hussein – were barely explored. Diplomacy was rushed.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

WHAT A TRAGIC STATE OF AFFAIRS
The Iraqi war represents one more episode of America's sad decline as a great nation. Since President Eisenhower warned Americans of the dangers of the industrial/military complex in 1962, everything that made America great and respected has been in decline. It has the appearance of being a war-monger nation, which emphatically states its right to intervene in the affairs of other countries to protect what the deem to be "America's interests". Poppycock. It appears that America like so many empires of the past has reached a stage where they can impost their will on other nations with impunity. The American Defence Department's commitment to achieve regime change in seven Arab countries in five years, has left the world at risk, and has destroyed the future outlook of many nations. And, what has been achieved - hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions of families made homeless, countries left in utter destruction, and an increase in international terrorism. Well done America.

I write these comments with the greatest of sadness, because at one time, I was one of America's greatest admirers. It saddens me to see the huge level of domestic problems being suffered by American families, while untold billions of dollars are being committed to killing people in other countries. America needs to focus on education, healthcare, social services, and providing prosperity to its citizens. That is what made America great in the past, and can do so in the future. Every time America bombs another country, it increases the number of terrorists. Stay home and look after your own people.

With due respect what the Chilcot report should contain insights into how not to make bad decisions, how to avoid cronyism because it leads to disastrous results, and bad policies.

Bush and his cronies did all of the above. Frankly, it scares me to think when you say “The lesson of the Iraq War should not be that all armed interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere are to be avoided”. Why go there, why this pre-occupation with armed conflicts, invasions and shoving our ideology down everyone throat?
I suppose it is now clear to see why Bush did what he did when I read this nonsense from Richard Haas!

Excellent points Mr.Haas specifically this paragraph: "...The lesson of the Iraq War should not be that all armed interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere are to be avoided, but rather that they must only be undertaken when they are the best available strategy and when the results are likely to justify the costs. Libya was a recent intervention that violated this principle; Syria has been even more costly, but in its case for what was not done".

And I just wish to add that if former presidsent George W. Bush would have read a piece that came out in the "Foreign Affairs" magazine after the first Iraq invasion in which an adviser to his father explained why they stopped short of removing Saddam Hussein the Middle East most probably would not be the quagmire it presently is.

I share your viewpoint Mr. Carpenter but the reality is that political-military nterventions throughout the history of mankind have constantly occurred and will continue to do so. The key is finding the correct balance within the corridors of power during the decision process to initiate or not hostilities. That bad intelligence plays a role is a given; but there has been situations when key players have been briefed not to intervene but yet they proceeded regardless of the facts.

In order to alter the foreign policy mishaps that continually are shaping the future in today's topsy-turvy world, it is essential for our policy makers to be top notch scholars in the art of war. Unfortunately the new breed of Western leadership lacks the martial background needed to deal with an array of complex problems we are currently facing. Unless this situation is reversed the prospects for a secure tomorrow seem extremely bleak.

The problem with the idea that armed interventions "must only be undertaken when they are the best available strategy and when the results are likely to justify the costs" is that it presupposes some group of God-like geniuses that can identify that "best available strategy" and predict with precision its costs. And at this stage, I would think that we know only too well that while there's no shortage of people who lay _claim_ to that required level of God-like genius -- there are very, very few that can warrant such a claim.

It seems to me that it's difficult enough to find sensible men and women that can recognize a genuine existential threat, never mind a "best available strategy" for an "intervention."

They knew damn well that there was no wmd's, but the campaign contributors of bush wanted the war, so they needed a cover story. Don't for one second buy the shoddy intelligence nonsense or the Chilcot obfuscation.

It is a well known and stated fact that Bashar al-Assad didn't make use of chemical weapons. It was only a further lemon, exactly as the Saddam' weapons of mass destruction, and the Saddam active participation and responsibility in 11/9. Two lemons at the price of one, a big deal. Do you forgot this second one?
“Iraq War did not have to happen, and certainly not when it did”. Of course, the opportunity to solve these problems by means of diplomacy it is not even to be considered, no? The problem isn't the fact, it is timing.
This stance isn't of course so much astonishing by someone who was directly involved in the US Administration who placed this couple of lemon – amid others.
So, nothing about learning some lesson from the history.
And when a Chilcot report in the US?

I am old enough to remember the faulty basis for the Bay of Pigs invasion where CIA "predicted" a great democratic uprising. Surprise surprise. Now we have the lesson of the Iraqi war in front of us and U.S. is now meddling in the South China Sea. This time against a growing nuclear power. Has anyone in the State Department planning function envision the possible blowback and possible unintended consequences of our action?

An important lesson of the American-led war in Iraq is that neither the USA nor the UK can be entrusted to make important decisions about war and peace in the international system. The Chilcot report provides ample evidence to support that argument.
The inevitable corollary is that having failed to get UN Security Council approval for the invasion of Iraq, the USA and UK, together with other members of the "Coalition of the Willing", should be required to compensate the Iraqi people for the damage done to the country and its innocent inhabitants as a result of the invasion. That compensation process should be overseen by the UN Security Council.
It would also be useful if similar policies were adopted in the cases of both Libya and Syria. The incompetence that informed these "humanitarian" interventions has been a reminder of the relationship between "the path to hell" and "good" intentions.

Steve, everyone knows this will not happen. The current leadership are getting away with murder (literally). This Chilcot report which had been delayed times over was timed perfectly to conceal all the bad news around. If Blair is to be held accountable, so should every other political leader that served since the German unification, until today.

Carter - January 1980 - Declared that "an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” to be “repelled by any means necessary,”

Only in Washington DC can criminal negligence, distortion and overt criminal behavior on the part of the "elites" (to use Mr. Haass' term) be transformed hey-presto into mere "policy mistakes." But that bit of magic is I guess what makes one a member of the "elites" in the first place.

1. The Iraq war happened because key members of the Bush Administration wanted it to happen. Full stop. The story of how they manipulated the decision-making process is pretty well out there by now, I think. When Colin Powell went to the UN with his nonsense slideshow, this was already evident.

2. Blair played the part of Bush's fluffer. My attention is not on him. Though he deserves the same massive guilt as a principle enabler, since US audiences are easily beguiled by a British accent (any British accent).

3. Lessons learned. The important part. Should we divide the question up in terms of being for or against the proposition: "Should Armed Interventions in the Middle East Always be avoided?".

Here's a better question- "Does the US foreign policy establishment have the ability to make sound judgments on the subject of armed interventions in the middle east?". The unequivocal answer to this is No.

History always repeats itself, it did repeat itself in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc under the Obama administration. Only Under the Obama administration there were many more lives lost, WWIII was about to start, WMDs, ISIS, and the refugees influx combined with all other disasters. So with all fairness, what the Bush and Blair did was a drop in the Ocean compared to what this US administration has done and is still doing.

What is there to say, Bush wanted war, Blair misrepresented and mis-spoke, in political language. Both individuals need attention and both probably will not get it other than in the history books. Then we have the roots of 911 which lie with the Clinton admin who relaxed boarding security against advice and due to lobbying from US domestic airlines wanting walk-on walk-off

I'm curious. There is a incredibly huge moral issue when you look at the war from Iraqis' eyes. Weren't they defending their country as patriotic duties required in 2003? Why did they have to surrender to invading foreign aggressors? Many Iraqis died defending their country being labeled as terrorists by the Western media. Regardless of Saddam or what happened later, we must honor them as patriots.

Politically it must be said that we should have done more in Syria. In fact, it was crazier to support rebels in Syria than in Libya. At least Libya was a remote unimportant country.

After we got Putin abstention on Libya by promising we would not overthrow Kaddafi, there was no way he would let us overthrow Assad. He clearly signalled he would use his planes to stop the kind of air attacks on Syrian troops that won in Libya. I would not think the public would support such a war. More aid would just have increased that going to the most radical forces in Iraq, and nothing else would have worked in Syria..

And if we had succeeded, there would have been a massacre of Alawites and the same of disorder in Syria that we got in Libya, but in a vital location.

I think Jeffrey Sachs's Why ISIS Persists has it quite right. But , of course, in an election year only non-actors can be totally frank. On everything else, Haass is on the money. Let us hope that he becomes National Security Adviser to the next President.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.